We can't afford the rich

We can’t afford the rich is the proper reply to “we can’t afford social security.” When dividing up societies spoils you have to really take a good look at the contribution of the rich. Too often it’s extract, or it’s not actually a contribution it’s a big net negative or a degradation of society- the rich and their unnecessary power. Through their sponsored media they always telling us to have religious veneration through the market which bestows their wealth and the more efficient it is a doing this we are told the more free it is. It’s the same thing for calls for charity, this a slightly veiled call for the rich to be unfettered in their attempts to convert money into raw power, this is a call to allow the rich to maximize their power. The majority of the current regressive rich made their money in real estate or in casino type banking/stock games.

Its isn’t so much re-distribution that we need to be concerned with but the initial distribution of wealth. Social security implies a more stable society with less money power going into the creation of useless, destructive, non-contributing, destabilizing largely arbitrary concentrations of private wealth. The world would be better off if people like the Koch’s had no money as they attempt to abuse power with it and attempt to use it to reduce the quality of life and standard of living of others who either actually contribute or contribute a lot more collectively. A society has to ask what its wealth is buying, its it a higher quality of life and greater useful stability or is it a toxic social cancer?

1 Like

So, whacha gunna do about it?

Koch’s made their billions drilling and selling oil. You going to ban the sale of oil? Yah, that will fly…

I have a better idea – Why don’t you just whine about them without providing substance? Oh, wait, you already do that – It doesn’t work either.

1 Like

I see them getting Yukos treatment. The national security state, which they are so much in favor of will begin to aptly perceive them as a threat and deal with them Yukos style. They are anti power sharing and therefore anti democratic, a slight shift in state propaganda or tax code could be a real problem for them. I think increasing transparency will be a problem because it seems like a long shot that their organization, given its stated aims, could stand the light of day.

But back to the point, the idea that we couldn’t afford social security was so incredibly idiotic. Like we couldn’t afford social security but could afford the Kochs or the Bushes or any of the other dynastic behind the scenes families? To be against social security is to be for social strife, which plainly are. Its like saying we can’t afford peace. That sentiment is getting out into the light of day and will bring massive change for the good if total dictatorship isn’t already in place by then.

As for the private sale of oil, that needs to end globally oil needs to be nationalized and associated profit eliminated. We can do that as we pursue better more politically stable means of energy production.

Nationalization of businesses is something Tyrants do.

Social security is a ponzi scheme. It will end how Ponzi schemes end. The math is the math…

Could we pay for such things other ways? Maybe. But it won’t work the way it is set up now.

Nope its not a ponzi scheme, that is the stock market. Its something that was fully solvent for almost all of its existence and if we properly tax the useless rich will continue to be so. The Republican’s have been trying to undermine it like crazy because it means higher taxes for the rich. That is all. Past a certain amount of wealth the AMT on the rich should be 51% for psychological reasons.

The criticism of Social Security has been that it pays or returns less than the zero rate. But that is fine as the issue is security not gambling. There was no need to provide a return. Really the age or retirement should be greatly lowered as should the work week. We need a lot less useless profit and a lot more liberty for most people. We need a system where the typical profit schemes of the rich involving liberty encroachment lead to jail time with stiff automatic minimum sentencing. Something for nothing and most cash in schemes should lead to jail. We need economic systems that reward character not undermine it.

1 Like

Lets see – It takes my money and gives it to Grandpa… Then it takes my kids money and gives it to dad, then it takes my grandkids money and gives it to me. That is a ponzi scheme. We can make up a “trust fund” that is just a ledger on the books, but that doesn’t mean anything in reality aside from cooking the books…

It is what it is… When we stop having kids (like we have) the revenues are not going to be there, and the money will have to come from somewhere.

Where have you been for the last 40 years? Everyone has know this. The writing has always been on the wall.

No the writing that’s been on the wall is a society that could lay everyone off way back in 1970 and improve everyone’s quality of living and make economy work better. Its been that automated since 70 and the policy makers knew that and it led to the ridiculous right side crack down that continues even today. We were retired all of us back in 70 when the policy makers realized this. Its just that most people have been denied their automated inheritance, even if their parents and grand parents put the means in place for them.

So once again, tax the rich and track their actual contribution or lack of it and make their earnings and wealth retention proportional and there is no issue. Close down all those incredibly useless and criminal tax evasion schemes in the Kaymen island and Switzerland and you have more than enough funding. Start taxing corporations again instead of allowing them to be evasion schemes and again plenty of funding. Last I looked Sweden was rank one in the world on Civil Liberties measures but it taxed at twice the US rate.

You can’t tax the rich. They have lawyers and accountants – They just move their money where it cannot be taxed.

Pipe dream away as usual… It also takes an act of congress and the signature of the president to make that happen. Usually when that happens it costs votes. You cannot wave a wand and make economic troubles go away. The goverment has been spending our grandkids money for the last 40 years. Did you seriously miss the warnings that have been going out for the last 40 years? Governments are what got us into this mess. Building a bigger richer one will only make more wars, and more rich oligopolies. It is silly.

Summary of every Warren post:

“If only we could have a tyranny run my way, the world would run wonderfully”

Sorry Warren, If you want to be a tyrant you will have to start being evil, buying votes, sponsoring causes, manipulationg the media etc etc etc. Just like all the evil folks you hate.

Get to work, and for God’s sake, stop talking about it. You will never get any votes if people know you plan to be a tyrant. And you are doing that every single stinking post.

1 Like

Hardly we have precedent for taxing the rich, best economic years we had and where the country was the strongest was when we taxed them the most from end of WWII to 70.

Take a look at Sweden. Its gotten worse from conservative influence ( a fail as usual) but the US needs to be a lot more like it structurally.

Good luck with that. The US isn’t Sweden.

Conservatives are not going away. More specifically, Libertarianism is winning everywhere. The libertarian technologies are going to accelerate the progression towards libertarianism, because by and large it will be the only choice… The biggest changes in America over the last 10 years have been libertarian causes. The momentum is not going to die.

No way. OWS was not libertarian it was liberal. The election of Obama and the taking of all three houses was not libertarian it was liberal. Libertarian is give Wall St. more power than it already has and let the banks rule. The only reason Libertarian means anything in the US is because conservatives have insisted on not teaching history and de-funding education (lowest funding in 80 years,) they’ve dumbed it down quite a bit so that people could be tricked into voting for them and their programs. Leaded gasoline and the IQ drop might have also helped their cause. But in general a higher numeracy level and an awareness of history completely inoculate against Liberarian nonsense that would bring us back to the problems Teddy Roosevelt faced and bring back the poor houses for the rich. Libertarianism is just economic en-slaverment by the rich by another name. And this at time when we have the tech to free almost everyone from work- have to dumb things down to an incredible level to get the Libertarian agenda to work.

The net, the spread of un-sponsored or much less sponsored media and shortly a huge uptick in transparency and more scandals should roll back the Libertarianism. I don’t think stuff like Weasel news makes it either. Upcoming generations are much more liberal. They know austerity is bullshit and its a pure libertarian idea as long as you raise the taxes only on the lower classes and cut only their services.

And where did OWS get us? Pretty much nowhere… Aside from the Cryptocurrency revolution which may or may not be related. (If so only barely by one or two people in common)

They put on quite a show, but changed next to nothing. and where are they now?

OWS has led to Anonymous and other efforts. It highlighted that Wall St. is very close to the core of the problem. Anonymous is pretty liberal and seemingly pretty effective. I wonder how many NSA/CIA/FBI employees now work with Anonymous. Anonymous has been pretty good about transparency too. Pretty sure it was it that helped make Sony a little more transparent With Richard David Steele the CIA told him he could do the open Linux conferences etc., and he left giving them the middle finger.

Anonymous was around long before OWS. Anonymous may have lead to OWS, but not the other way around.

All in all, OWS accomplished very little except for giving MSNBC and NPR a different way to say the things they would have been saying anyway. .

All of the progress made was where there was overlap with the libertarian cause – anti-surveillance etc…

It was Adbuster that supposedly led to OWS. Libertarians are about empowering the rich at the expense of everyone else. Mercator, Cato institute etc. Its nothing but that. At the very least they want he people who are rich and powerful to remain almost without regard to the cost to others. I suspect its been shaken up a bit. I know Russ Roberts at Econ Talk has evolved some since the crisis but for the Libertarian community I still think its free market pipe dreams where refuse to see that markets are not self stabilizing and that they have externalities costs that have to be dealt with and where they are not necessarily the ultimate solution to distribution problems and certainly not to the main criterion for wealth distribution.

I think Anonymous has been profound in its impact and further that its influence is growing. They’ve repeatedly interrupted mainstream media. Maybe they will be able to edit the next Romney in any presidential debate? An organization that can interrupt mainstream media and keep doing it seems to be demonstrating a kind of dominance. The impact on state brands is huge, as are the damaging revelations.
Stuff is as telltale as Bush and “my pet goat,” on 911- every world ‘leader’ could read right through that stuff.
But its not alone, add wikileaks, Snowden, slur, maidsafe, bitcoin, open software and systems. It all runs together. Its like I keep telling you, you will have no privacy without transparency.

No, Your defintion of libertarian is wrong. They are not in the business of making people rich. Libertarians are about People being free… And ending government handouts to the rich. Which is most of what you complain about. Companies get rich because governments pay them, and governments make it expensive for competitors to get a foothold in the markets.

People getting rich can be a side effect of freedom. But that kind of richness is for the right reasons - Because they provided something of value to the market and people bought it.

People get far richer by abusing liberal governments. They sell ridiculous things like Ethanol subsidies. Solar panels in the fog… Not to mention Oligarchy after Oligarchy. Insanely deep regulation that makes it impossible or highly impractical for new players to enter markets like Banking and finance. Moreover the regulations don’t work - as the regulators are in the back pocket of the regulated. The problem is government sucks. And you constantly want bigger government that will continue to suck… Keep applying the wrong answer and you will keep getting rich oligarchs.

1 Like

Hard to disagree with much of that.